The Death Of Fossil Fuels

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 5465
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels

Post by Grumble »

IvanV wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 4:22 pm Whilst this - the solar panel bit at least - sounds rather amazing, we should remember that only about 20% of the world's final energy consumption is supplied by electricity. But on the other hand, that doesn't imply we need 4 times more on top. Electricity can usually be used with about 2 to 3 times the efficiency of other energy sources, at least for common large fossil fuel powered applications like road vehicles and space heating. So replacing the rest - in terms of gross energy requirement - would only require about 1.5 to 2 times more.
That 20% figure is wrong though, that’s not final energy usage. The figure Michael Liebreich uses is over 30% here: https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-e ... et-part-i/ so we’re over 50% better off than you think
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3533
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels

Post by IvanV »

Grumble wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 8:34 pm
IvanV wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 4:22 pm Whilst this - the solar panel bit at least - sounds rather amazing, we should remember that only about 20% of the world's final energy consumption is supplied by electricity. But on the other hand, that doesn't imply we need 4 times more on top. Electricity can usually be used with about 2 to 3 times the efficiency of other energy sources, at least for common large fossil fuel powered applications like road vehicles and space heating. So replacing the rest - in terms of gross energy requirement - would only require about 1.5 to 2 times more.
That 20% figure is wrong though, that’s not final energy usage. The figure Michael Liebreich uses is over 30% here: https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-e ... et-part-i/ so we’re over 50% better off than you think
The article you quote makes exactly the same argument as I do. Ie, in matter of fact it is currently 80%, but when you replace it, it will be less. Though my adjustment is more optimistic than in the article.
Post Reply